1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 712 of 2025 1 - Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Kasturi Sharma W/o Late Surendra Sharma Aged About 67 Years R/o Brahmin Para, Near Sohaga Mandir, Raipur C.G. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Post And P S Mandir Hasaud, Raipur C.G. 3 - Collector, Raipur Collectorate, Post And P S Gol Bazaar Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate. For State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 08.10.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 IA No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal stands allowed and accordingly delay is condoned. 2 The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.1037 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.10.10 17:18:49 +0530 2 No.1 herein was allowed holding her entitled to get Freedom Fighter Pension (in short, ‘Pension’) on behalf of her deceased Husband late Surendra Sharma and the appellant herein was directed to sanction Pension under Swatantrata Sainik Samman Yojana (SSSY) within three months. 3 The subject matter in brief is that, the writ petitioner is the wife of late Surendra Sharma. She claimed pension before this court with the pleading that her late Husband had actively taken part in freedom struggle and during Quit India Movement along with other persons namely Maganlal Bagdi, Shyam Narayan Kashmiri and Shuyamlal Nai. He was also a member of Hindustan Red Army who organized destruction of government property and communication during the Quit India Movement. The entire members of Hindustan Red Army rewarded for arrest of the members of the group and they faced the criminal lis in Sessions Trial No.37 of 1944. Various communications have been issued by Maganlal Bagri stating therein that the husband of the petitioner was a member of group who had unfurled the tricolor on the Secretariat building at Nagpur, the capital of the then C.P. and Barar and was also injured in Lathi Charge in Hindi Bhasi Sangh High School, Nagpur and had actively participated in the attack of Mouda Police Station. The husband of the petitioner made an application in February, 1984 for grant of pension under the Central Pension Scheme. The said application was rejected on 28.10.1984 on the ground that the same is being submitted after 31.03.1982. The subsequent application was again rejected on 03.07.1998 and 04.10.1999 on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the letter 3 of reward issue by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur. Further, at the relevant time he was a minor aged about 12 years. The husband of the petitioner made a representation that his name was recommended by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Chemical and Fertilizers and also the Hon’ble Minister of the State of Home Affairs, however, the same has not been considered. The husband of the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1956 of 2002 before this court, however, during pendency of that writ petition, the husband of petitioner died on 10.08.2005 and the said writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.11.2008. When the petitioner came into knowledge about dismissal of writ petition for want of prosecution, she made an application for restoration of the writ petition vide MCC No.22 of 2012 but the same was disposed of on 17.02.2014 reserving the right of the petitioner to take appropriate steps. Thereafter, Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2014 was filed claiming grant of Central Pension of Freedom Fighter to the petitioner after declaring the husband of the petitioner late Surendra Sharma as freedom fighter. 4 The respective respondents filed their return and denied the claim of the petitioner by raising objection that pension under the Freedom Fighter Scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right as it was an honour to the freedom fighter and after death of person concerned, the benefit of same cannot be extended to his wife or other family members. 5 After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, held her entitled for grant of Pension under 4 Freedom Fighter Scheme on behalf of her late husband Surendra Sharma which is under challenge in the present writ appeal. 6 Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that the pension under the Freedom Fighter Scheme cannot be claimed as a matter of right as the same is an honour to the freedom fighter. The revised guidelines issued in the year, 2014 has not been considered by learned Single Judge in which it has been clearly disclosed that pension cannot be granted to the family members of the deceased freedom fighter, yet the benefit has been extended to the petitioner. Earlier the claim of the husband of the petitioner was repeatedly rejected by the authorities concerned and he was not considered to be a freedom fighter as name of the husband of the petitioner was not found in the list of freedom fighters. Although, the State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh recommended for inclusion of the name of the husband of the petitioner in the list of freedom fighters vide recommendation dated 30.05.1997 and 19.11.1997, however, the same was not forwarded to Central Government for its consideration. Since the husband of the petitioner was not a freedom fighter, his wife i.e. the petitioner is also not entitled for any relief under the Freedom Fighter Scheme, yet learned Single Judge has granted relief which is liable to be set aside. 7 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/writ petitioner would submit that the then State of Madhya Pradesh has recommended vide its letter dated 30.05.1997 and 19.11.1997 for inclusion of the name of the husband of petitioner in the list of freedom fighters and also recommended to pay the honorarium payable to freedom fighters. Once the State Govt. has considered the husband of 5 the petitioner as freedom fighter, there is no reason to deny the benefits granted to the freedom fighter. After his death, his wife is also entitled for the benefit under the Freedom Fighter Pension Scheme. He would also submit that learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court holding the field, has passed the reasoned order which is strictly in accordance with law and needs no interference. 8 Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the ratio laid down by learned Single Judge. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petition by the parties. 10 From perusal of order passed by learned Single Judge it transpires that he has considered the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 which was a Central Govt. scheme for grant of pension to freedom fighters and their family members from Central Revenues which was introduced by the Central Government to extend the benefit of pension to all the freedom fighters as a token of respect to them. He has also considered the persons who are eligible for pension under the said scheme. The learned Single Judge has also considered that the said scheme of 1980 is a document based scheme and the documents are to be produced by the applicant in support of their claims duly verified and recommended by the concerned State Govt. Certain conditions are also mentioned in the said scheme for entitlement to grant said benefit under the scheme of 1980. From perusal of 6 documents (Annexure P/5 & P/6) annexed with the writ petition which is the recommendation made by the then State of Madhya Pradesh dated 30.05.1997 and 19.11.1997 by which the name of the husband of the petitioner was recommended for inclusion of his name in the list of freedom fighters and for grant of said honorarium. 11 After going through the entire documents annexed with the writ petition, learned Single Judge has held that the husband of the petitioner was a freedom fighter and was involved in various freedom fighting activities and he was the member of Hindustan Red Army. It was also considered that though the husband of the petitioner was minor at the time of claimed participation in freedom fight movement, however, it was also found that he was kept behind the bar for several occasions in between 1942 and 1943. 12 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Lal Bhandari & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 1993 Supp.(2)SCC 2, has held in paragraph 7 of its judgment as under: “7….. Where the freedom fighters are not alive and their widows and the unmarried daughters have to prefer claims, the position may still be worse with regard to their knowledge of the prescribed date. What is more, if the Scheme has been introduced with the genuine desire to assist and honour those who had given the best part of their life for the country, it. illbehoves the Government to raise pleas of limitation against such claims. In fact, the Government, if it is possible for them to do so, should find out the freedom fighters or their dependents and approach them with the pension instead of requiring them to make applications for the same. That would be the true spirit of working out such Schemes. The Scheme has rightly been renamed in 1985 as the Swatantra Sainik Samman Pension 7 Scheme to accord with its object. We, therefore, cannot countenance the plea of the Government that the claimants would only be entitled to the benefit of the Scheme if they made applications before a particular date notwithstanding that in fact they had suffered the imprisonment and made the sacrifices and were thus otherwise qualified to receive the benefit. We are, therefore, of the view that whatever the date on which the claimants make the applications, the benefit should be made available to them. The date proscribed in any past or future notice inviting the claims, should be regarded more as a matter of administrative convenience than as a rigid time-limit.” 13 So far as the contention of the writ appellant that revised policy/guidelines for disbursement of Central Samman Pension dated 06.08.2014 issued by the Govt. of India has not been considered by learned Single Judge is concerned, the same is not appealing to this court on the ground that the said revised policy/guideline was issued in the year 2014 whereas the recommendation for grant of said Samman Nidhi to the husband of the petitioner and inclusion of his name in the list of freedom fighter was made in the year 1997. The said revised policy/guideline cannot be made effective with retrospective effect, but it has the prospective effect. 14 After considering various judgments of Supreme Court holding the field of subject matter, the learned Single Judge has passed the order, held the petitioner entitled for grant of Freedom Fighter Pension on behalf of her husband late Surendra Sharma in which we do not find any infirmity or irregularity to interfere with the same. 15 Even otherwise, in an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of 8 the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversity, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 16 The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge. Sd/- Sd/ (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder